Injunctions are pointless, claims Lord Falconer

Senior figures have raised concerns about the growing use of injunctions by celebrities after names of those who allegedly obtained the gagging orders were revealed on Twitter.

Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, entered the debate, claiming the social networking site had rendered the injunctions "pointless".

In reports today, he was quoted as saying: "If a point is reached as a matter of evidence when everyone knows who the injunctions are about then they become pretty pointless."

He told the Daily Mail: "It sounds like it's very difficult to make sure that injunctions like this are complied with."

His comments came after one Twitter user set up an account claiming to expose celebrities who have obtained injunctions to prevent media reporting of their private lives.

It attracted thousands of followers and the content of the posts was discussed very widely on Twitter.

Prime Minister David Cameron also spoke out about the issue, telling the Sun: "I think judges are saying, look, there is a European Convention of Human Rights which we can use.

"And because Parliament has not discussed this enough, they feel they are filling a gap."

He added: "I believe in free speech and a free press. But we need the right balance between privacy and freedom."

Claire Perry, a Conservative member of the House of Commons justice committee told the Daily Telegraph: "This is making a mockery of the existing law and we need to make sure that the law catches up with the technology."

Plaid Cymru MP Elfyn Llwyd, a member of the committee, said the "two-tier system" was allowing the well off to do as they pleased.

The messages on Twitter contained serious errors, including a false claim that socialite and campaigner Jemima Khan had stopped publication of pictures of her with Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson.

Khan wrote on the microblogging site: "Rumour that I have a super injunction preventing publication of 'intimate' photos of me and Jeremy Clarkson. NOT TRUE!"

There is growing disquiet about celebrities' use of injunctions and "super-injunctions" - whose very existence cannot be reported - to prevent publication of details about their private lives.

BBC presenter Andrew Marr revealed last month that he took out a super-injunction in January 2008 to prevent reporting of an affair.

On Thursday, an injunction was granted to a Premier League footballer who apparently wanted to hide an affair with an 18-year-old model from his wife.

Meanwhile, the 24-year-old woman at the centre of an injunction preventing a married actor from being identified said she believed the release of the names on Twitter made a mockery of gagging orders.

Helen Wood, who reportedly had sex with Wayne Rooney and another call girl Jennifer Thompson before England's World Cup campaign last summer, said she no longer worked as an escort.

In an interview with Victoria Derbyshire on Radio 5 Live, she said: "I think when somebody like a judge has made a formal decision and then it is gone and broadcasted all over something as petty as Twitter, it is absolutely ridiculous.

"It has made them look like a complete joke."Solicitor Mark Stephens said he believed super injunctions were being brought into disrespect and disrepute.

"We have seen people who have absolutely unblemished records and personalities being named quite wrongly as having taken out super injunctions," he said.

"And on the other hand, we have also got a problem with super injunctions themselves. We have got a legal problem in the sense that they are almost discriminatory justice.

"Not a single woman has taken out a super injunction and as a result of that, it is only the men. Invariably they are rich men because it costs between £50,000 and £100,000 to get a super injunction."

He added: "On a more practical and prosaic level, if you are getting an injunction then in those circumstances you are doing nothing much more than painting a target on your back waiting for the Tweeterati and the blogosphere to come and get you to find out who you are and put the information up there.

"Of course now we have had so many people tweet and retweet information about who has got injunctions I think that we are into the same position as we got with Peter Wright's book Spycatcher when the British courts couldn't hold the injunction any longer."

Mr Stephens added: "I think we are into the realms of contempt of court. The people who have set up these Twitter accounts to out people with super injunctions have acted in contempt of court and I think they are being traced as we speak.

"Their electronic footprints and fingerprints are all over these sites and as a result of that I think within the next 48 hours they can expect a call and a knock on the door."